From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,c2f5d3be19a9b5eb
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c2f5d3be19a9b5eb
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Mark  McKinney <mckmark@mail.concentric.net>
Subject: Re: Why isn't Ada as popular as C? [Was: C is better than Ada
 because...]
Date: 1996/08/01
Message-ID: <4tpa30$26v@herald.concentric.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 171347207
references: <01bb7f20$c0e477e0$96ee6fcf@timhome2>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Concentric Internet Services
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 1.22-INTUIT (Windows; U; 16bit)
Date: 1996-08-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


1. Software metrics people help me out. I suspect that error rates are not 
linear with project size. If this is the case then as software grows more 
complex it will be more important to use a language that assists you in 
finding potential errors. Ada is a tool to be used to reduce errors. 

2. As advances in processor speed begin to slow down and the trend gears 
toward systems with multiple cheap processors a language that has tasking 
constructs will prove more valuable as well. Ada has laguage construct 
that define separate tasks.

3. C seems to be an unnecessary level between Assembly and a high level 
language. Like microcode was eliminated in RISC processors will eventually 
be eliminated as a method of developing complex software(True most of us 
may be retired by then). A larger leap at each level of abstraction in 
systems is needed to keep the layering from getting to deep(keep this in 
mind when developing objects) as a good balance between depth and width of 
design is required. IMHO Ada provides higher level abstractions of low 
level constructs than c.

4. C++ programming seems to require simultaneous programming at a low 
level(C) and at a high level(++). The OO features added in Ada95 seem to 
fit better with the language giving it better balance. 

5. In the long run. It will prove to cost more to develop 100 RAD systems 
that never quit do the job. Than one upgradable modifiable system that 
performs reliably throughout it's lifecycle.

Ada will continue to gain popularity particularly when the as of systems 
becomes more important. 

These opinions are mine and those who agree with them them.

                 Mark McKinney
                 mckmark@mail.concentric.net